ORDER
P. Lakshmana Reddy, J. (Vice Chairman)
1. This is an application filed by Stores Watchman seeking promotion to the post of Caretaker in the scale of Rs. 3050-4550. The relevant facts of the case are as follows:
The applicant was initially appointed as ELRC Khalasi on 3.10.1978 under DSK/Doubling/Renigunta of S.C. Railway of Guntakal Division. He was confirmed on 1.1.83 as Khalasi in the scale of Rs. 750-940 and his service was regularised w.e.f. 14.1.2.96 in Gr. ‘D’ service. On date of this application he was working as Senior Stores Watchman in the scale of Rs. 2610-3540. The applicant claims that he has continuous service of 25 years in Group `D’ service and his next promotion is to the post Caretaker in the scale of Rs. 3050-4590 and therefore he is eligible to be promoted as Caretaker by virtue of his seniority in the post of Sr. Watchman under Engineering Department. He made representation dated 5.2.2004 and also 10.3.2005 requesting for promotion to the post of Caretaker, but there was no reply. On 1.9.2005, the name of the applicant was forwarded to R-2 to consider him for promotion to the post of Caretaker. But the Sr. DPO, Guntakal in his letter dated 29.3.2006 issued impugned order promoting Shri K. Sudarshanam, Carpenter Helper, who is not eligible for the post of Caretaker as his channel of promotion under SSE/Works. TPTY is skilled grade III in the scale of 3050-4590 and not Caretaker post. Therefore, the said promotion of K. Sudarshanam is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of rules and the said orders are to be set aside and the applicant has to be promoted as Caretaker.
2. The respondents contested the application and filed reply statement, stating that the next promotion for the Sr. Store Watchman in the scale of Rs. 2610-3540, is only as Store Watchman in grade Rs. 2650-4000 and then to grade of Rs. 2750-4400 and not to the post of Caretaker which is an ex-cadre post which will be filled only by calling volunteers from the staff working in Works cadre of Civil Engineering Department and hence a notification was issued calling volunteers to fill up the posts of Caretakers against two work-charged vacancies and in response to the notification, four applications have been received including from the applicant. The list was prepared in the order of seniority and that the applicant’s name found place at Sl. No. 3 in the order of seniority. It is further stated that name of K. Sudarsanam, Carpenter Helper in the scale of 2650-4000 is placed at Sl. No. 1 and Chengal Raju, Sr. Lascar in the scale of 2610-3540 is placed in Sl. No. 2 and the applicant, Sr. Store Watchman in the scale of 2610-3540 is placed at Sl. No. 3 and Ramachandra, Sr. Store Watchman is placed at Sl. No. 4. The respondents pleaded that the seniormost employees are selected and promoted as Caretaker vide order dated 18.7.2006 against the bulk sanction of two work charged posts subject to the continuance of bulk sanction and as such there is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned orders and the application is liable to be dismissed.
3. The applicant filed rejoinder reiterating the contentions raised in the application. He further stated that two vacancies of Caretaker created for the period from 1.4.2005 to 30.4.2006 only for a period of one year and the sanction was also expired by 30.4.2006 and there was no necessity to give notification dated 29.3.2006 and prepare a panel dated 18.7.2006 and that it is nothing but favouring the vested interests and therefore, the selections to regular appointment is not right and that the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary.
4. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that K. Sudarsanam who is placed in Sl. No. 1 in the panel joined Railway service later than the applicant. Further, K. Sudarshanam is a skilled worker in carpentry and his promotion is only to skilled grade in the scale of 3050-4590 and not the post of Caretaker though it carried same scale and that Sr. Store Watchman is the competent man to work as Caretaker and therefore, the applicant is entitled for promotion as Caretaker in place of Shri K. Sudarshanam.
5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents reiterated the contentions raised in the reply. He contended that the Caretaker post is not a cadre post and it is only an ex-cadre post and therefore, the question of the applicant claiming promotion as of right from the Sr. Store Watchman does not arise. It is further submitted that due notification was given inviting applications from volunteers from the staff of IOWs and in response to that notification two senior staff, one Sr. Lascar and one Carpenter Helper made applications and among them, two senior most staff have been selected for the work charged vacancies of Caretakers and there is no illegality or irregularity. The counsel for the applicant replied that though Chengal Raju is senior to the applicant, Sudarshanam is not senior to the applicant.
6. The point that arise for consideration is (i) whether the impugned orders passed by the respondents are sustainable in law?
Point (i) : It is not disputed in the rejoinder that K. Sudarshanam was drawing Rs. 2650-4000 with effect from 1.11.2003 whereas the applicant is drawing the scale of only 2610-3540 with effect from 5.2.2003 and therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the applicant is senior to K. Sudarshanam. The appointing authority wanted to take senior most post among the four applicants. The seniority list has been prepared and then the two senior most persons have been selected as Caretakers. Admittedly, Chengal Raju who is placed at Sl. No. 2 entered into 2610-3540 on 21.6.96 whereas the applicant entered into that scale only from 5.2.2003. Therefore, Chengal Raju is also senior to the applicant. So far as Sudarshanam is concerned, he was drawing higher grade scale of 2650-4000 with effect from 1.11.2003 whereas the applicant has not yet reached that scale. Therefore, we are of the considered view that both Sudarshanam and Chengal Raju are seniors to the applicant and therefore those two persons have been selected to the post of Caretaker. We find no illegality and irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the respondents. Thus, the point is found against the applicant.
7. In the result, the OA is dismissed with no order as to costs.